Yes, I think we basically do do agree.
My point is that, in actual History, "feudalism" was varied in form and function. The ideal, textbook hierarchal pecking order from King to the lowest vassal seldom existed in reality. Apart from the three traditionally mentioned Estates of the Crown , the Nobility and the Church, in many places, the People also exerted a powerful and, ultimately, a decisive influence.
In Spain, the nobility was firmly entrenched in Galicia and Asturias, that cold, rainy, mountainous, Celtic corner of northwest Spain that had resisted Roman conquest for 200 years until it fell at the time of Augustus and that had fended off the Muslim conquest. Today, Asturians quip that "Asturias is Spain and everthing else in Spain is merely reconquered territory.
As the reconquest proceeded southward, Castile came into being and was much like the America Old West with new towns and cities hunkered down in a hostile land in perpetual war. These towns, powerful entities in themselves, secured charters of rights, known as "fueros", from the Crown. Traditionally, in many Castilian cities, a newly crowned King on a tour of his new reign would be locked outside the walls of the city until he pledged that the traditional fueros granted to the city by his forefather would be honored.
Ideally, the balance of power between the Crown, the Nobility and the People would have been preserved, more or less, as it was in England.
Medieval Spain, however, went through stages where, in a given region at a given time, either the Towns or the Nobility or, eventually, the Crown, was supreme in power.
For a century, the Lara family from Castile and the Castro family from Galicia competed and often actually warred with each other to be the puppet-masters pulling the strings of the Crown. At other times, and Towns & People competed and warred with the Nobility with their rural power base for local control.
In England, that power struggle did not produce a clear cut winner. Neither the Crown, nor the Nobility nor Cromwell ever emerged supreme and stayed supreme.
In Spain, however, the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella marked the end of the supremacy of the local Nobility and the "War of the Communities of Castille" at the start of the reign of Charles V marked the end of power of the Towns.
After that, the Crown was in unchallenged supremacy in Spain to the detriment of its future.
Today, in America, we take the balance of power inherited from the history of England as the Natural Order of Things, but, in reality it is not.
From your writings, it is evident you are well aware that those of us today that call ourselves "conservatives" are, in fact, 18th Century "liberals".
For some "conservatives", however, being "conservative" means that they expect the Government to stand aside as they practice "Capitalism: cold and cruel" when it suits them but then they go whining and pleading for protection and their "rights" from the U.S. Government when Daddy Warbucks, Incorporated squashes them like a cockroach because Daddy Warbucks, Incorporated bought the City Council, the Mayor, the Police, the Judges and the Governor fair and square under "Capitalism: cold and cruel" .
I made the comparison of feudalism with laissez-faire capitalism when one poster stated that the reason that we do not have Americans picking vegetables in the fields is because the U.S. Government has provided them with such things as minimum wage. It was further claimed that it was not the job of Government to look after the economic welfare of its citizen as that was the job of churches and charities.
It was claimed that Government only had the obligation to stand aside as "Capitalism: cold and cruel" was practiced because that was what worked "the best".
The "recognized rights" that you are stipulating in your definition of capitalism were totally absent in that definition of capitalism.
That degree of laissez-faire capitalism is nothing more than the feudalism that existed in 15th Century Galicia where several extremely wealthy noble families used their wealth, completely free of central Government interference to totally dominate, with crushing economic power and with private military power, the entire socio-economic landscape of Galicia.
It was pure "Capitalism: Cold and Cruel" which, naturally, resulted in Darwinian natural selection that ultimately was decided by the sword.
Those who claim that it is not the job of Government to safeguard the economic welfare of its citizens have learned nothing from History.
